Your argument against "many paths to God"

[ToddNotTodd]

Unfortunately, Christianity is also unique in the emphasis it places on belief. You might reason that Christianity is the best choice to minimize the risk of a wrong choice, but you might not be able to believe Christian claims. (Of course some versions of Christianity such as Orthodox do not care as much about belief - even though ironically Orthodox means "right belief" LOL.)

Right, even if you, mistakenly, use Pascal's Wager to decide to believe in a religion, if you have no other reasons it seems like you aren't really believing, you're just hedging your bets.

And I'll say that I'm absolutely open to changing my opinion about anything at all, given good reasons to do so. So the "Oh, you'll never believe anyway" line is just a cop out.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's a good point if the central claim of Christianity is the literal Resurrection of Jesus. I don't think that this is the central claim though. The central claim of Christianity is the collection of personal spiritual experiences of each believer. The "why die for a lie" argument can then be applied to Christian martyrs from any period who were given an opportunity to recant their beliefs. (I suppose that there are some Christians who see Christianity simply as faith in the events recorded in the Gospel with no subsequent activity of God. They are probably a minority though.)

I basically agree with what you wrote, but I think the "why die for a lie" is too narrowly focused. The argument is wrong, because it assumes that a falsehood can only result from a lie. Christianity can be false without any secret conspiracy of liars behind the falsehood. And the physical Resurrection is not a necessity for Christianity to be true. Jesus can be "the way the light and the truth" with His bones still lying the ground somewhere. The empty tomb is just icing on the cake.

It's hard to attack or defend Christianity, because Christianity means so many different things to different people. You made some good points, but I think the whole "why die for a lie" argument is too narrow-minded.

Interesting take. I don't know whether Christians hold the crucifixion or the resurrection higher, but my understanding is that they are 1a and 1b, with literally any other issue being vastly less important.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@HereIStand and @Adstar seem to be dodging the more challenging posts.

 

[Freodin]

Here is a thought: As far as I know, Christianity is the only path that claims to be the only path. Furthermore, Christianity claims that people on other paths will suffer some horrible fate in hell. If a person was forced to choose between established religions, it would make sense to choose Christianity. If Christianity's claims are false, and some other religion's claims are true, then you are still o.k. - you just weren't on the ideal path.

Unfortunately, Christianity is also unique in the emphasis it places on belief. You might reason that Christianity is the best choice to minimize the risk of a wrong choice, but you might not be able to believe Christian claims. (Of course some versions of Christianity such as Orthodox do not care as much about belief - even though ironically Orthodox means "right belief" LOL.)

To claim to be the only real totally (and fatally) right one within a group of similar system that all have the problem of verifiability (rather: the lack thereof) is not a plus. I would even count it as a minus.
While it still retains the problem of potentially being completely wrong, it discards the option of being only partially wrong.

 

[cloudyday2]

To claim to be the only real totally (and fatally) right one within a group of similar system that all have the problem of verifiability (rather: the lack thereof) is not a plus. I would even count it as a minus.
While it still retains the problem of potentially being completely wrong, it discards the option of being only partially wrong.

Can you explain the last sentence that I marked in red? Maybe it should be obvious but I don't understand it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And I'll say that I'm absolutely open to changing my opinion about anything at all, given good reasons to do so. So the "Oh, you'll never believe anyway" line is just a cop out.

I think you stated that you had "reasons" to believe before,
and no longer believe or no longer accept those reasons.
What were those reasons ?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think you stated that you had "reasons" to believe before,
and no longer believe or no longer accept those reasons.
What were those reasons ?

There were many. Some were outright fallacious:
"Everyone around me is a Christian so it must be true."
"I know the Bible is true because the god of the Bible says it's true."

Some were unwarranted assumptions:
"I have a true personal relationship with the Christian god."
"Other people around me have true personal relationships with the Christian god."

 

[Freodin]

Can you explain the last sentence that I marked in red? Maybe it should be obvious but I don't understand it.

Sorry, it was kind of weirdly phrased... though I like how that sentence came together.

What it means is: the insistence on this "all or nothing", "you are either for us or against us", "my way or the highway" approach to a claim of truth - while you are still lacking the means of verification - does not increase your credibility, it decreases it.

As system that allows for mistakes can be improved. As system that claims to be already perfect is either perfect, or a complete failure.

 

[cloudyday2]

Sorry, it was kind of weirdly phrased... though I like how that sentence came together.

What it means is: the insistence on this "all or nothing", "you are either for us or against us", "my way or the highway" approach to a claim of truth - while you are still lacking the means of verification - does not increase your credibility, it decreases it.

As system that allows for mistakes can be improved. As system that claims to be already perfect is either perfect, or a complete failure.

O.k. that makes sense now.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another possible argument for Christianity might be numbers. There are 1 billion Catholics all over the world, and their beliefs are fairly uniform as far as I know. (I'm sure there are variations in conservative versus liberal cultures of course.) Catholicism would be the ideal choice for somebody who is persuaded by the majority opinion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Another possible argument for Christianity might be numbers.

Except Christianity - the authority , beginning, middle and end, is Jesus, in line with all Scripture;
and He says,
and several other declarations in Scripture
claim or show that God chooses what is weaker, what is smaller (like Israel when He choose Israel was the smallest of the nations, on purpose) ,
what is "nothing" to men,
and God takes the ones who are rejected by men, and makes us whole and righteous and complete through Jesus.

i.e. the Bible goes against going by the bigger numbers.

 

[cloudyday2]

Except Christianity - the authority , beginning, middle and end, is Jesus, in line with all Scripture;
and He says,
and several other declarations in Scripture
claim or show that God chooses what is weaker, what is smaller (like Israel when He choose Israel was the smallest of the nations, on purpose) ,
what is "nothing" to men,
and God takes the ones who are rejected by men, and makes us whole and righteous and complete through Jesus.

i.e. the Bible goes against going by the bigger numbers.

I suppose at some point the weak instrument chosen by God must become wildly successful. Maybe we are in the era where the weak instrument consisting of those frightened early disciples of Jesus has become wildly successful in the form of the Catholic Church with 1 billion members?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I suppose at some point the weak instrument chosen by God must become wildly successful. Maybe we are in the era where the weak instrument consisting of those frightened early disciples of Jesus has become wildly successful in the form of the Catholic Church with 1 billion members?

I don't think that ever happened.
The ones called by God are always persecuted, suffer much at the hands of governments , other religions, all kinds of other authorities frequently....

It is true that the false beast and prophet become popular on earth, along with or in and through the false one world church that began come time in the past.

They also do not exhibit the truth of Jesus,
nor anything right with Scripture,
nor the healing life of Christ and God in the assemblies,
things which all the faithful in the Bible did.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Another possible argument for Christianity might be numbers. There are 1 billion Catholics all over the world, and their beliefs are fairly uniform as far as I know. (I'm sure there are variations in conservative versus liberal cultures of course.) Catholicism would be the ideal choice for somebody who is persuaded by the majority opinion.

The fact that numerous cardinals, and presumably popes, have engaged in worldwide cover-ups of child rape should be grounds for the forcible dissolution of the Catholic church. Their "converts" are indoctrinated children who don't know any better. An adult to consciously deciding to become Catholic is absurd. It happens... I'm aware... but it is also absurd.

 

[cloudyday2]

The fact that numerous cardinals, and presumably popes, have engaged in worldwide cover-ups of child rape should be grounds for the forcible dissolution of the Catholic church. Their "converts" are indoctrinated children who don't know any better. An adult to consciously deciding to become Catholic is absurd. It happens... I'm aware... but it is also absurd.

Those scandals did cause many Catholics to lose confidence in the Church. Of course Catholics are not unique in having scandals and coverups. Considering the number of people, Catholicism might actually have less scandal than other religions.

If the Catholics are disqualified from consideration, then the next largest religious sect might be the Sunnis. I don't know if the Sunni beliefs are uniform enough to consider them a single sect though. The Wahhabis have lots of money, and that is always a nice thing.

 

[cloudyday2]

This is another way of thinking about the argument I made earlier for Christianity over exclusivity:

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews all consider Christians to be on a satisfactory path.

Christians consider most of them to be on a fatally flawed path.

It might be possible for a Christian to incorporate Buddhist practices into Christianity so that both paths can be walked.

So Christianity may not necessarily be the optimal path, but no religion thinks Christianity is fatally flawed, and Christianity thinks some of the other religions are fatally flawed.

If a person is risk-averse and gives Christianity any credence at all, then Christianity becomes the best choice. In time a person can hope to believe in Christianity after practicing it. For example, people often have life-changing born-again/Holy Spirit experiences after fervently praying for such an experience. The belief often comes after the choice of testing the Christian path.

For some reason this sales pitch isn't persuasive to me personally. I think it is because I have lost so much faith in Christianity that I do not take the threat of hell seriously at all. This sales pitch would only persuade people who are already leaning towards Christianity.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another approach might be polemics. If a Christian can point-out flaws in the competing paths to God, then Christianity becomes the only choice.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another angle is lifestyle. Christianity probably has the fewer formal lifestyle requirements on its members.

 

[dcalling]

If I was trying to make a case that Christianity is the only or best path here are some ideas:

(1) Show that the metaphysical ideas are more plausible or internally consistent or something.

(2) Show that the practices are more effective - possibly by comparing the results obtained by ordinary people on different paths.

(3) Show that the saints are better. (Martyrdom might be an example of saintly faith for example. Then there are stories of amazing achievements by saints of various religions.)

(4) ??? (I've run out of ideas, but I'm sure there are more.)

1. Look through the Bible, NT/OT, it is very consistent. It is God's Law and God's love. And the commandment to us is Love: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." Lev 19:18. and in NT: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Luke 10:27

The idea that humans can't save themselves but only God can (i.e. depend on God, you can't save yourselve by good works, i.e pray x time a day, donate Y amount of money).

2. practices. There is almost no peaceful religion that thrives under persecution.

3. Saints? Because we know all man are sinful, there is no better saints. We are all flawed.

4. Look around the world, do you prefer to live in majority protestant Christian countries or some other?

 

[cloudyday2]

4. Look around the world, do you prefer to live in majority protestant Christian countries or some other?

I agree that Protestant Christian countries are good places to live generally. I'm not certain if Protestant Christianity is the cause or a symptom though. Protestant Christianity could only grow in the more free societies such as England.

I might have enjoyed living in the Soviet Union. Of course that is gone.